The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) is not an exercise of force against the victim’s unilateral attack, but an exercise of force against the victim under equal circumstances with the victim, and thus, this does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act.

2. Between persons who conduct a fighting match to be judged, an act of attack and a defense has been conducted repeatedly, and an act of defense is called a justifiable act for the purpose of defending against an act of either party, both sides of which are the act of attack at the same time;

It is common that it is difficult to regard it as a party's defense.

However, if one party unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from such attack, this is reasonable and acceptable under social norms, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). The following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and the evidence duly examined, namely, ① the victim’s fightd from G at the time of the instant case from the Defendant’s injury to the Defendant, whereas the victim asserted against the victim by the first hand, ② the victim was “scambling with the Defendant each other,” and the victim’s statement to the effect that he/she did not make a new attack (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).